D&D (2024) Time to add new Armors to the table.

[Minigiant]

Flavorwise, there is an unlimited number of armor types.

Mechanically, magic armor diversifies rewards.

Flavorwise sure.

Mechanically.. if the new treasure isn't noticeably better or have a worthwhile tradeoff >50% of players will not care about the new armor you throw in the treasure and will sell or hand it down to henchmen.

This wasn't a problem in older editions as you 4-6 levels of +X to hand out.

But in 5e, giving out +2 armor can really screw up battles.
A Fighter with +2 armor can get to 23 AC easy and make 75% of attacks against him miss.

This means you only have a +1 and +0 range to work with. But 5e's armor don't get top end options to light or heavy armor.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

except that shifts from subjective build choices with tradeoffs to one optimal option within pointbuy costs & even less room for the GM to use for treasure.

What is the value of this 'room for treasure' point you keep bringing up?

 

[Minigiant]

So, with my suggestion the exact type of armour would be up the DM's imagination, so there would be boundless treasure options.

Say the DM is getting treasure out of the DM's Guide or D&D Beyond and they want there to be some interesting armour. They go with Armour of the Mariner, and decide on AC 16 as the base (so, heavy armour, etc.). Then they tell the player what it looks like - maybe Merfolk forged it from Dragon Turtle shell, for example.

My point is that all that matters about armour are its attributes (AC, type, str/dex limitations, cost). Specifying the exact type of the armour doesn't need to be in the rules and leaving it up to the players/DMs increases choice and options while getting rid of irrelevant debates, like whether chain is more limiting than scale and so on. Those are table-level discussions that don't need to be worked into the rules.

That''s my point of why simplistic armor wont work.

Once the fighter get +1 plate, your plate armor of the fish or scale armor of lightning resistance is going in the bag of hold to be sold to the next rich NPC willing to buy.

But If you added banded, the fighter has the choice of losing 1 AC for the ability to make stealth checks. So when they find a banded armor +1 they are excited because they actually use this armor.

 

[Yaarel]

Flavorwise sure.

Mechanically.. if the new treasure isn't noticeably better or have a worthwhile tradeoff >50% of players will not care about the new armor you throw in the treasure and will sell or hand it down to henchmen.

This wasn't a problem in older editions as you 4-6 levels of +X to hand out.

But in 5e, giving out +2 armor can really screw up battles.
A Fighter with +2 armor can get to 23 AC easy and make 75% of attacks against him miss.

This means you only have a +1 and +0 range to work with. But 5e's armor don't get top end options to light or heavy armor.

Conversely, if the player loves their chain armor and its flavor, it kinda sucks if they are forced to give it up because the "better" armor isnt chain.



If AC=Strength+Dexterity

Then there is such thing as Chain (prereq +3 Strength) and Chain (prereq +5 Strength).

So, if the player likes Chain, it is possible to find a better version of it. It is even possible to upgrade the armor by modifying it or adding other armoring with it.

If the player wants Banded (namely Lorica Segmentata) then both +3 to +4 are possible.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm definitely on board with adding more armor. I'd like to see more adders to armor as well, like we see with weapons. I'd like a buckler in there too.

 

[Bill Zebub]

• Heavy Wool Sweater (prereq +1 Strength)

How about a puffy jacket stuffed with down from a baby roc?

 

[tetrasodium]

What is the value of this 'room for treasure' point you keep bringing up?

You know... standard GM stuff. Your question highlights a failing of 5e's DMG since there's no good reference material to point to there. Back in past editions there was much more effort devoted to aiding & supporting the GM with rules advice & guidance

Up until 5e it was accepted and even spelled out explicitly in more than one edition that awarding players with treasure to make them more powerful was an important part of keeping players interested as a GM. 4e made the mistake of taking that role out of the GM's control & giving it to the players but 5e makes the mistake of removing it entirely with bounded accuracy & a no feats no magic items assumption for the math. The GM is still expected to award treasure, it's just either game disrupting or worth less than chucky cheese prize tickets.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

You know... standard GM stuff. Your question highlights a failing of 5e's DMG since there's no good reference material to point to there. Back in past editions there was much more effort devoted to aiding & supporting the GM with rules advice & guidance

Up until 5e it was accepted and even spelled out explicitly in more than one edition that awarding players with treasure to make them more powerful was an important part of keeping players interested as a GM. 4e made the mistake of taking that role out of the GM's control & giving it to the players but 5e makes the mistake of removing it entirely with bounded accuracy & a no feats no magic items assumption for the math. The GM is still expected to award treasure, it's just either game disrupting or worth less than chucky cheese prize tickets.

I see what you're saying. I'm not sure how picking on granularity of armour benefits aids that. I guess it does in a sense, but there are other ways to address that issue. Simplifying armour does have some benefits. Complexifying armour, though it does satisfy your point, adds... complexity. Not sure the trade off is worth it.

Interesting point though...

 

[aco175]

The GM is still expected to award treasure, it's just either game disrupting or worth less than chucky cheese prize tickets.

How dare you, look at this kid, he must be able to get several sticks of Bazooka gum, a slimly guy that walks down glass, and a potion of climbing- talk about treasure.

 

[tetrasodium]

I see what you're saying. I'm not sure how picking on granularity of armour benefits aids that. I guess it does in a sense, but there are other ways to address that issue. Simplifying armour does have some benefits. Complexifying armour, though it does satisfy your point, adds... complexity. Not sure the trade off is worth it.

Interesting point though...

When armor had more dials than a single objective total AC=X alongside "does bob plan to use stealth" there were more dials a gm could manipulate. Simplifications reduce the already overly narrow set of options players might find potentially exciting available for the gm to choose from. Granularity expands the options